On Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 02:03:34 UTC, Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Saturday, 15 December 2012 at 20:39:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Can we drop the LTS name ? It reminds me of ubuntu, and I
clearly hope that people promoting that idea don't plan to
reproduce ubuntu's scheme :
- it is not suitable for a programming language (as stated 3
time now, so just read before why I won't repeat it).
You don't need to repeat your self, you need to expand on your
points. Joseph has already requested that you give specifics of
your objection, you have explained why the situation is
different but not what needs to be different.
This is completely backward, but I'll do it anyway. But first,
let me explain why it is backward.
You are using distro's versionning system as a base of reflexion.
But such system is made to achieve different goal than a
programming language. I shouldn't be here explaining why this is
wrong, you should be here explaining me why it can be applied
anyway.
Otherwise, anyone can come with any point, whatever how stupid it
is, and each time we have to prove that person wrong. When you
come with something, you have to explain why it make sens, not
the other way around.
Back to the point, and it will be the last time. A distro is a
set of programs. The goal of the distro is to provide a set of
programs, as up to date as possible, that integrate nicely with
each other, and with as few bugs as possible. Some of these goals
are in conflict, so we see different pattern emerge, with
different tradeoff, as ubuntu and debians's processes.
From one version to another, distro don't need backward
compatibility. Easy migration is important, but not
compatibility. This is why debian can switch to multiarch in its
next version (which break a hell lot of things). You don't need
revision of the distro because software are updated on a per
software basis when problems are detected (package in fact, but
it don't really matter).
This is very different from a programming language where :
- no package update is possible. The concept of package don't
even exist in our world.
- backward compatibility is a very important point, when it isn't
for distros.
The only goal that is coming is trying to reach some level of
stability. Everything else is completely different.
Your points were specific to Debian's model, which is not
Ubuntu's.
- ubuntu is notoriously unstable.
I don't know anyone who uses the LTS releases. That isn't to
say no one is, but Ubuntu is doing a lot of experimenting in
their 6 month releases.
I used to work with ubuntu. I've done a ton of things with that
distro. It IS unstable. In fact, it is based on debian unstable,
so it isn't really a surprise.
